Seriously, Don't Do This: Unsubscribe Edition

A while back I pointed out a few things that some websites do that are just plain wrong. Keeping with the "Seriously, don't do this" theme, the next episode is regarding the ability and method of unsubscribing from an email.

This has been inspired by the living hell that is CBS Sports junk email thanks to filling out a March Madness bracket.

Rules of the unsubscription process

  1. Always have a clear unsubscription method in your email communications, though the myth that it is legally required has been busted, this shows you or your company have at least a shred of decency and respect for your customers. 

  2. Clicking an unsubscribe link should never, under any circumstances, require me to log into your service. I'm logged into the email account that I verified as linked to my account; if my email has been hacked and the hacker is so kind as to unsubscribe me from junk email, so be it, that's not your problem.

  3. There should be an option to disable all types of nonessential email, and all options should be honored. You'd think this last one is a no-brainer, but I've got every single box unchecked for CBS Sports and I'm still getting an email every day from them. I went so far as to check subscriptions to all CBS affiliates, I have none, I still get email.

A violation of these basic signs of respect show that you don't respect your users. Plain and simple. You might have marketing stats that the unwanted emails drive some amount of extra traffic to your site, but providing a valuable service and respecting your customers will drive a lot more long term growth because when people get a valuable service that gives them a good experience they tend to keep using it and share it with friends.

So please, don't do this.

Stay tuned for future rants on best practices online.

There is no iWatch [Updated]

Make no mistake, Apple has evaluated, designed, and strongly considered variations of a smart watch, but the tech media is blowing up with absolute certainty that "the iWatch" will be released. It won't. The is no iWatch. I'm not saying it will never be released, but not in 2014, and likely not for at least a handful of years after that, if ever.

There have been compelling discussions on this. One by Craig Hockenberry at Furbo, and another by Ben Bajarin at Techpinions - both are excellent reads. Craig's highlights a multitude of serious concerns for entering the wearable space and poses the quintessential question for Apple:

What problems can a wearable device solve?

That is how Apple is looking at this problem, and there are few, if any, compelling arguments for why Apple should enter the market. The reasons not to enter the market are overwhelming, here are some key issues.

  1. They're competing with highly skilled, tremendously well designed, and thoroughly entrenched parties for the wrist real estate.

  2. Entering a market where the measure of style and quality is not even remotely within reach in the sub-$1000 market is problematic. Apple cannot release a watch that expensive for several reasons, namely because tech is outdated so fast and people will be expected to replace this device relatively frequently (every iPhone or two, even three). Traditional watches last forever.

  3. Making a watch is very different from providing a solution that classifies as wearable technology.

  4. The technology simply doesn't exist to make a beautiful design, long battery life, nice screen, and compelling fitness features. The Moto360 is attractive, but far too thick, no word on battery life, no word on price, and doesn't have any fitness features.

Apple has always been about cultivating a user experience that is vastly aided by a carefully nurtured ecosystem. That is a major reason why platform lock-in is so common. The ecosystem is so great, you want to use it. Once you have invested in it, it's really tough to leave unless you want to forfeit your investment.

To this end, Ben highlights a far more likely scenario to explain all of the Healthbook features seen in the iOS 8 leaks.

In short, what if Apple is preparing to enable and empower an ecosystem of wearables, made by third parties, but with unique and proprietary hooks to the iPhone. Healthbook would simply serve as a mechanism to work with third party hardware, along with specific APIs, and display key data for the consumer. This makes the most sense to me. Apple would encourage and enable third party hardware companies to build value around the iPhone and make the platform stronger. 

That doesn't just sound like Apple, it screams Apple. It oozes of Apple. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to wearable tech. Every person has a different daily routine, different activities, and different health concerns. It is impossible for any one device to cover all of these with today's technology.

The iPhone works because the overlap in usage is so large for smartphone users that the iPhone works, in one way or another, for millions of people (for those where it doesn't work, there are other platforms). I don't see a similar market opportunity for wearables as it sits today.

I fully expect Apple to accelerate and enable technology growth in this space to make things interesting, I just don't think they'll be releasing an iWatch to make that happen.

UPDATE: Given some of the feedback, I thought it is worth clarifying my position on the iWatch. I would love for an iWatch to be a real thing. After owning and liking some things about the Pebble, I'm confident I will be wearing a smart watch in the future, and who better than Apple to make it? That being said, this article outlines what I consider to be the overwhelmingly convincing case as to why that isn't happening in the short term. I sincerely hope to be wrong.

UPDATE (03/17/15): Apple did the primary thing I suspected they would not do – they are taking on the high end watch market. I still believe that both types of products can coexist, but I didn't see this one coming. I was partially right saying that there wouldn't be a watch in 2014, there was a more finished product than I expected, but not a product for sale. That being said, I still think they are a full year ahead of where I would have expected them to be at the time (much like the retina iPad Mini in 2013).

Moto360 Q&A Highlights

A few points of interest from the Moto360 event going on now on YouTube. [Update: Event is over.]

  • Wireless charging - I'm inferring this, they didn't explicitly say it, but implied it strongly.
  • 1.8" (46mm) diameter.
  • Won't comment on battery life, "but was designed with power efficiency in mind."
  • Targeting mass appeal, so not intended as a men's watch.
  • Works with all Android devices running Android 4.3 or later.
  • Water resistant, details forthcoming.
  • No camera embedded in the watch (thankfully).
  • Genuine leather.
  • "With this watch, you'll always be able to tell what time it is." (Subtle jab at Pebble?)

More updates posted as they're revealed.

Hangouts Can't Handle 6000 People for Moto360 Event [Update: Live on YouTube]

UPDATE

After giving on on Google Hangouts it seems, they are now live on YouTube.

Everyone I've talked to trying to sign into the Moto360 event on Google Hangouts has been met with timeouts and errors, though the participants list suggests some people are able to log in. I've tried on 3 devices - iPhone, iPad, and a Windows PC with no luck. I've also tried 2 wifi networks and a strong LTE connection on both the iPad and iPhone - no luck.

With an audience this large, most are echoing the question of why they didn't just use a live YouTube stream.

A link to the event can be found here, but for now it doesn't seem it will do you any good.

Apple Doesn't Need to Make a TV to Reinvent TV

News broke this morning, as reported in Haunted Empire: Apple After Steve Jobs, about Steve Jobs proclaiming confidently that Apple would not be making a television set. Specifically, when asked about Apple making a television set the conversation went like this:

Yukari says "Jobs didn't hesitate." He said, "No." 

"TV is a terrible business. They don't turn over and the margins suck," said Jobs. (Unlike iPhones which are wildly profitable and replaced every two years, a TV gets replaced every 8 years, and isn't all that profitable.)

There are two things to consider here. First, Jobs wasn't exactly shy about bashing an industry that he and Apple would soon enter (like 7" tablets, though the case is solid for a 7" tablet being far different from 7.85"). Second, and most importantly, Apple doesn't need to make a television set to revolutionize TV. They don't and they won't; it simply wouldn't make sense.

Apple as a company provides superb user experiences and beautifully designed products. It would be ideal to have everyone viewing the Apple TV revolution on some Jony Ive designed 4K screen with high end surround sound to match, sure. It just isn't realistic and the upside is limited.

The revolution in the television world will be with content delivery, content packaging, and content itself. Apple has had great success cultivating an ecosystem of content, but the traditional cable provider and television network situation has clearly proven challenging for even Apple to battle. Apple will not go all-in on the TV/content market until they have the control they demand. 

They have the UI figured out. They've got the set top box designed. They have the remote ready to go. I've got a hunch that their television plans have been ready for quite some time now, they're just waiting for the content deals to fall into place, then they push the button.